If Theotokos is sinless and Perfect, Why does she still need a Savior?How does this teaching aligh with Luke 1:47?

The Theotokos is sinless because of Christ, according to Catholics. In speaking about the Immaculate Conception, Catholics will often say that Christ redeems us by pulling us out of the pit of sin, whereas with Mary he prevented her from falling into the pit in the first place: retroactive redemption.

I have often wondered why, if God can remove the stain of Original Sin from Mary, He doesn't remove it from everyone.

The Theotokos was certainly sinless, but she was not made perfect until after her death. And if Our Lord did not incarnate, suffer death, and rise from the dead, the Virgin, like the righteous before her, would have descended into Hades to await the coming of the Christ to release her from the bondage of death. Personal sin is not all that we are saved from.

Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.” -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope

I know this sounds cliche but one can save a person by either pulling them out of a hole, or keeping them from falling into a hole. In our case, God saved us after we fell into the hole sin. In the Blessed Virgin Mary's case, God saved her from falling into the hole.

I have often wondered why, if God can remove the stain of Original Sin from Mary, He doesn't remove it from everyone.

Because that is not the way that He chose to redeem us. Why did He redeem us by dying on the cross? He's God, He can do anything, He could have just willed us to be saved without dying and it would have been so.

If Theotokos is sinless and Perfect, Why does she still need a Savior?How does this teaching aligh with Luke 1:47?

The Theotokos is sinless because of Christ, according to Catholics. In speaking about the Immaculate Conception, Catholics will often say that Christ redeems us by pulling us out of the pit of sin, whereas with Mary he prevented her from falling into the pit in the first place: retroactive redemption.

I have often wondered why, if God can remove the stain of Original Sin from Mary, He doesn't remove it from everyone.

That is the problem of the Catholic notion of the immaculate conception: why does it have to be only Mary? Now some Catholics are pushing the notion that the Forerunner has also been immaculately conceived. Each day I am seeing the Catholic Church moving closer and closer to real heresy. It might come to the point that it will declare the Forerunner to be immaculately conceived as well, just to make Mary's immaculate conception be more "credible".

That is the problem of the Catholic notion of the immaculate conception: why does it have to be only Mary? Now some Catholics are pushing the notion that the Forerunner has also been immaculately conceived. Each day I am seeing the Catholic Church moving closer and closer to real heresy. It might come to the point that it will declare the Forerunner to be immaculately conceived as well, just to make Mary's immaculate conception be more "credible".[/font]

It had to be only Mary because it was about making her a worthy vessel for Christ. In addition, I have heard exactly no one talking about St. John the Baptist being immaculately conceived, so I have no idea where you are getting that from. I'm not calling you a liar, but this is literally the first I have heard of that idea.

Now, I have heard it stated that he was sanctified while in the womb at the Visitation, but even that is not doctrine to my understanding. Its certainly not in any Catechism or Catholic Biblical Commentary I have seen. The only thing close I can find is Denzinger's The Sources of Catholic Dogma citing Durand of Huesca's profession of Faith as saying: "We believe that God is the one and same author of the Old and the New Testament, who existing in the Trinity, as it is said, created all things from nothing; and that John the Baptist, sent by Him, was holy and just, and in the womb of his mother was filled with the Holy Spirit."

Why would Catholic Church teach that Theotokos is sinless and perfect？

If Theotokos is sinless and Perfect, Why does she still need a Savior?How does this teaching aligh with Luke 1:47?

Was there any Church Father teaching that Theotokos is sinless, holy and perfect?

Saving in that the theotokos didn't need saving from sins but rather saving in being divinised, the ressurected body which she most certaintly didn't have? Thats one way they could go about it.

This is how I see for the most part. That Christ elevated and deified Mary, yet it was still because of God that Mary was given the grace to be free from the ontological corruption of sin and painful guilt.

I don't believe in Original Sin, so I guess I am immaculately conceived as well.

yay me.

Admittedly, while I applaud St. Augustine for his theology of grace, among other doctrines, in combatting the Pelagian heresy, his doctrine of original sin is deeply problematic.

I see it like this: Adam and Eve were offered deification by God but they rejected this offer through sin which distorted their natural innocence and freedom (the will) by introducing shamefulness of themselves and a perennial guilt that is returned to us in our own sinful acts. In that sense, I see an ontological (weakness of will) and existential (guilt) effect of the Fall but I don't believe that physical death was first introduced here but rather that we now face this death in weakness and fear until our redemption in Christ.

It had to be only Mary because it was about making her a worthy vessel for Christ.

As a former Catholic, I have read and heard this explanation. At first it sounds logical, until one realizes that a few things: one, Jesus is God the Son, and would not in any way be affected by how Mary is. Another problem with this would be logical in itself: if Jesus in her womb requires that Mary should be sinless, then shouldn't that require of Mary's mother [St. Anne] to be the same as well? Then we go back further to having St. Anne's mother being the same, and etc.

Quote

In addition, I have heard exactly no one talking about St. John the Baptist being immaculately conceived, so I have no idea where you are getting that from.

CAF. I read this from a few Catholic posters there that it has shocked me to no end.

Adam and Eve are imperfect types of Jesus and Mary, the new Adam and Eve, respectively. Because Old Testament types can never be superior to their New Testament fulfillment, and because Eve was born sinless, Mary must have been born sinless as well.

I don't think it holds up to basic scrutiny, though. Eve was born sinless because no sin was in the world when she was created. Similarly, the argument opens up all sorts of absurd counterpoints. Adam was the first man to ever be created, but Jesus Christ was something like the 1,998,973 man to be created, etc.

I pondered upon the idea that if the blessed Mary is sinless and perfect in her being, then the effects of sin upon us humans would not affect her.

Pain during her birth maybe got removed by the grace of God, í actually don´t know nothing on that point. But thirst or hunger that we humans didn´t need in our first state in paradise, is that something that catholics acknowledge to Mary?

Logged

“Belatedly I loved thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new, belatedly I loved thee. For see, thou wast within and I was without, and I sought thee out there."

I am not sure, and please forgive me if im wrong. Isn´t the core difference between orthodox and catholics regarding the blessed virgin this:

Orthodox: Mary herself chose and withs Gods close strength dwelling in here not to sin. The possibilty was always before her to sin, but she chose God in all her decisions, actions and words.

Catholics: Marys will is not even included as her being is fully sinless. Sin didn´t even have a grip upon her, there was no will to chose God nor reject him. Rather her own will was reduced to only go with God. But a restrained will can´t show the love and affection she had towards God.

As a former Catholic, I have read and heard this explanation. At first it sounds logical, until one realizes that a few things: one, Jesus is God the Son, and would not in any way be affected by how Mary is. Another problem with this would be logical in itself: if Jesus in her womb requires that Mary should be sinless, then shouldn't that require of Mary's mother [St. Anne] to be the same as well? Then we go back further to having St. Anne's mother being the same, and etc.[/font]

Assuming that God works in human time, you would be correct. But as we know, that is not true.

Quote

CAF. I read this from a few Catholic posters there that it has shocked me to no end.

It would shock me as well were I to hear it. I have been on there for a long time and have not heard of such a belief. It certainly is not doctrine, and I cannot imagine it ever becoming so. Leo XIII makes a passing reference to St. John the Baptist being cleansed from sin in a similar fashion to Jeremiah: "Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee", and Thomas Aquinas says something similar. But I can find no references at all from anyone remotely authoritative which suggests what you heard. Again, I am not saying you are a liar, just that I cannot find it.

Assuming that God works in human time, you would be correct. But as we know, that is not true.

Of course it is not true, but it would be the logical conclusion to it since Mary is born sinless as well, as per Catholic notion, which would then require that her mother should be as well, or else it would not make any sense that her mother is somehow tainted, as it is, by original sin and she is not but that this is needed for Christ, who is the Second Person of the Trinity? It doesn't make sense in any way. Hence the weakness of the notion of the immaculate conception.

Quote

It would shock me as well were I to hear it. I have been on there for a long time and have not heard of such a belief. It certainly is not doctrine, and I cannot imagine it ever becoming so.

No, it is not yet doctrine, but then one can again see why this is being thought of by some Catholics.

Quote

But I can find no references at all from anyone remotely authoritative which suggests what you heard. Again, I am not saying you are a liar, just that I cannot find it.

As I've said, it is from some posters in CAF; it certainly isn't taught (yet) by anyone in the Catholic Church, the notion by some is there already.

Assuming that God works in human time, you would be correct. But as we know, that is not true.

Of course it is not true, but it would be the logical conclusion to it since Mary is born sinless as well, as per Catholic notion, which would then require that her mother should be as well, or else it would not make any sense that her mother is somehow tainted, as it is, by original sin and she is not but that this is needed for Christ, who is the Second Person of the Trinity? It doesn't make sense in any way. Hence the weakness of the notion of the immaculate conception.

Quote

It would shock me as well were I to hear it. I have been on there for a long time and have not heard of such a belief. It certainly is not doctrine, and I cannot imagine it ever becoming so.

No, it is not yet doctrine, but then one can again see why this is being thought of by some Catholics.

Quote

But I can find no references at all from anyone remotely authoritative which suggests what you heard. Again, I am not saying you are a liar, just that I cannot find it.

As I've said, it is from some posters in CAF; it certainly isn't taught (yet) by anyone in the Catholic Church, the notion by some is there already.

I think you're missing some important pieces to the IC puzzle in Catholic theology. For Catholics we believe that the Fall resulted in a weakening of the will in human creatures. Without grace to prevent this perennial characteristic of the fallen human, then Mary would have had a deficient will for her choice to receive God in the Holy Spirit and to endure throughout her life. It is the eschatogical event of perfect obedience in contrast to the disobedience of Eve as is, in part, the Assumption or Dormition of Mary.

Consequently, there is no logical reason to posit a graced reductionism to all the females in Mother Mary's bloodline which would be absurd.

I think you're missing some important pieces to the IC puzzle in Catholic theology. For Catholics we believe that the Fall resulted in a weakening of the will in human creatures. Without grace to prevent this perennial characteristic of the fallen human, then Mary would have had a deficient will for her choice to receive God in the Holy Spirit and to endure throughout her life. It is the eschatogical event of perfect obedience in contrast to the disobedience of Eve as is, in part, the Assumption or Dormition of Mary.

This makes even little sense, for then Catholic teaching is now saying that Mary could not have chosen God's will; it makes her somewhat like a robot. But based on Scripture itself, Mary gave her yes on her own free will. Certainly the Holy Spirit guided her to give her yes, but she was equally free to have said no. In a larger sense, does this mean that we are somehow with less grace than the Theotokos since we perennially fall into temptation?

And the problem of the immaculate conception still stands--why would Jesus need to be in a place that is free from any taint but for Mary it isn't necessary? Jesus is the Second Person in the Trinity, God Himself. It would be absurd to think that God cannot take care of Himself and thus need to have a vessel free of any taint but Mary, who is not deity in any way, doesn't need so. That is strange.

I think you're missing some important pieces to the IC puzzle in Catholic theology. For Catholics we believe that the Fall resulted in a weakening of the will in human creatures. Without grace to prevent this perennial characteristic of the fallen human, then Mary would have had a deficient will for her choice to receive God in the Holy Spirit and to endure throughout her life. It is the eschatogical event of perfect obedience in contrast to the disobedience of Eve as is, in part, the Assumption or Dormition of Mary.

This makes even little sense, for then Catholic teaching is now saying that Mary could not have chosen God's will; it makes her somewhat like a robot. But based on Scripture itself, Mary gave her yes on her own free will. Certainly the Holy Spirit guided her to give her yes, but she was equally free to have said no. In a larger sense, does this mean that we are somehow with less grace than the Theotokos since we perennially fall into temptation?

And the problem of the immaculate conception still stands--why would Jesus need to be in a place that is free from any taint but for Mary it isn't necessary? Jesus is the Second Person in the Trinity, God Himself. It would be absurd to think that God cannot take care of Himself and thus need to have a vessel free of any taint but Mary, who is not deity in any way, doesn't need so. That is strange.

Actually it does make sense given the state of fallen human nature as I described above. Mother Mary did not have a corrupted will as we do nor did she sin as we do, that's correct. Catholic dogma states that the grace God gave Mary was to preserve her from this corruption. Nothing that I said implies that the Blessed Mother was a 'robot,' that's an absurd detraction or tragic misunderstanding of what I said. Having greater freedom does not make one a robot. Mary was graced with a different condition than us yes, as she did not fall into win as we perennially do. The divinity of Christ doesn't need to be birthed from an untainted womb, though that may be most fitting, but Mary did in order to be restored to the pre-Fall condition and be able to constantly adhere in the Holy Spirit without ever sinning which we do not do.

I think you're missing some important pieces to the IC puzzle in Catholic theology. For Catholics we believe that the Fall resulted in a weakening of the will in human creatures. Without grace to prevent this perennial characteristic of the fallen human, then Mary would have had a deficient will for her choice to receive God in the Holy Spirit and to endure throughout her life. It is the eschatogical event of perfect obedience in contrast to the disobedience of Eve as is, in part, the Assumption or Dormition of Mary.

This makes even little sense, for then Catholic teaching is now saying that Mary could not have chosen God's will; it makes her somewhat like a robot. But based on Scripture itself, Mary gave her yes on her own free will. Certainly the Holy Spirit guided her to give her yes, but she was equally free to have said no. In a larger sense, does this mean that we are somehow with less grace than the Theotokos since we perennially fall into temptation?

And the problem of the immaculate conception still stands--why would Jesus need to be in a place that is free from any taint but for Mary it isn't necessary? Jesus is the Second Person in the Trinity, God Himself. It would be absurd to think that God cannot take care of Himself and thus need to have a vessel free of any taint but Mary, who is not deity in any way, doesn't need so. That is strange.

Actually it does make sense given the state of fallen human nature as I described above. Mother Mary did not have a corrupted will as we do nor did she sin as we do, that's correct. Catholic dogma states that the grace God gave Mary was to preserve her from this corruption. Nothing that I said implies that the Blessed Mother was a 'robot,' that's an absurd detraction or tragic misunderstanding of what I said. Having greater freedom does not make one a robot. Mary was graced with a different condition than us yes, as she did not fall into win as we perennially do. The divinity of Christ doesn't need to be birthed from an untainted womb, though that may be most fitting, but Mary did in order to be restored to the pre-Fall condition and be able to constantly adhere in the Holy Spirit without ever sinning which we do not do.

So are you saying that she could not have remained free of sin without the IC? You see we believe that she could and did. If, on the other hand, you believe that it would have been impossible for the Theotokos to remain free of sin without the IC, it implies that you must believe also that John the Baptist must have been immaculately conceived - or do you believe, unlike us, that he sinned?

Surely, though, the IC as you understand it (and it's certainly not the only way I've seen it explained by all RCs) renders the example of the Theotokos' obedience and sinlessness irrelevant to us. It detracts from her. If she could only resist sin because of a special and singular gift from God which rendered her nature different to ours, it lessens her. It lessens her achievement in resisting sin because she had an advantage no-one else does. It lessens her obedience to God.

Honestly, I see the IC, depending on how it is interpreted by the RC I'm speaking to, to range anywhere from misguided and pointless to outright heretical. As you have described it above I see only inconsistency and denigration of the Theotokos.

James

« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 03:40:51 AM by jmbejdl »

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Actually it does make sense given the state of fallen human nature as I described above. Mother Mary did not have a corrupted will as we do nor did she sin as we do, that's correct. Catholic dogma states that the grace God gave Mary was to preserve her from this corruption. Nothing that I said implies that the Blessed Mother was a 'robot,' that's an absurd detraction or tragic misunderstanding of what I said. Having greater freedom does not make one a robot.

Again, when I was Catholic this all made sense, until one begins to ask--why would she be needed to be free from corruption at all? As you have said it yourself, is not needed. It is unnecessary then. Christ is God the Son; God Himself. He doesn't need an untainted vessel to be born into the world. And you still have not answered the question: why is it needed for Jesus to be in an untainted vessel, given that He is God Himself, and Mary does not? Remember, again according to Catholic dogma Jesus and Mary were both born without sin.

Also, I have said that in the Catholic teaching she becomes like a robot since it seems she couldn't think for herself; she simply lost the power to fall into sin. It makes her less of a human, as most Protestants would contend against this notion.

As I've said, it is from some posters in CAF; it certainly isn't taught (yet) by anyone in the Catholic Church, the notion by some is there already.

I've heard all sorts of crazy things on CAF as I post there frequently. That doesn't mean any of those things are on the verge of becoming doctrine. Unless you can point to someone in a position of authority, heck even some priests, teaching this, then I think you are just looking for things which do not exist.

I am not sure, and please forgive me if im wrong. Isn´t the core difference between orthodox and catholics regarding the blessed virgin this:

Orthodox: Mary herself chose and withs Gods close strength dwelling in here not to sin. The possibilty was always before her to sin, but she chose God in all her decisions, actions and words.

Catholics: Marys will is not even included as her being is fully sinless. Sin didn´t even have a grip upon her, there was no will to chose God nor reject him. Rather her own will was reduced to only go with God. But a restrained will can´t show the love and affection she had towards God.

I would say your Catholic assessment is not quite right. Mary had as much free will as Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created without original sin as well, yet they freely chose to rebel against God. Even though Mary was conceived without original sin, she had just as much free will to rebel against God as Adam and Eve did.

I think you're missing some important pieces to the IC puzzle in Catholic theology. For Catholics we believe that the Fall resulted in a weakening of the will in human creatures. Without grace to prevent this perennial characteristic of the fallen human, then Mary would have had a deficient will for her choice to receive God in the Holy Spirit and to endure throughout her life. It is the eschatogical event of perfect obedience in contrast to the disobedience of Eve as is, in part, the Assumption or Dormition of Mary.

This makes even little sense, for then Catholic teaching is now saying that Mary could not have chosen God's will; it makes her somewhat like a robot. But based on Scripture itself, Mary gave her yes on her own free will. Certainly the Holy Spirit guided her to give her yes, but she was equally free to have said no. In a larger sense, does this mean that we are somehow with less grace than the Theotokos since we perennially fall into temptation?

And the problem of the immaculate conception still stands--why would Jesus need to be in a place that is free from any taint but for Mary it isn't necessary? Jesus is the Second Person in the Trinity, God Himself. It would be absurd to think that God cannot take care of Himself and thus need to have a vessel free of any taint but Mary, who is not deity in any way, doesn't need so. That is strange.

Actually it does make sense given the state of fallen human nature as I described above. Mother Mary did not have a corrupted will as we do nor did she sin as we do, that's correct. Catholic dogma states that the grace God gave Mary was to preserve her from this corruption. Nothing that I said implies that the Blessed Mother was a 'robot,' that's an absurd detraction or tragic misunderstanding of what I said. Having greater freedom does not make one a robot. Mary was graced with a different condition than us yes, as she did not fall into win as we perennially do. The divinity of Christ doesn't need to be birthed from an untainted womb, though that may be most fitting, but Mary did in order to be restored to the pre-Fall condition and be able to constantly adhere in the Holy Spirit without ever sinning which we do not do.

So are you saying that she could not have remained free of sin without the IC? You see we believe that she could and did. If, on the other hand, you believe that it would have been impossible for the Theotokos to remain free of sin without the IC, it implies that you must believe also that John the Baptist must have been immaculately conceived - or do you believe, unlike us, that he sinned?

Surely, though, the IC as you understand it (and it's certainly not the only way I've seen it explained by all RCs) renders the example of the Theotokos' obedience and sinlessness irrelevant to us. It detracts from her. If she could only resist sin because of a special and singular gift from God which rendered her nature different to ours, it lessens her. It lessens her achievement in resisting sin because she had an advantage no-one else does. It lessens her obedience to God.

Honestly, I see the IC, depending on how it is interpreted by the RC I'm speaking to, to range anywhere from misguided and pointless to outright heretical. As you have described it above I see only inconsistency and denigration of the Theotokos.

James

1) we have no dogma on whether John the Baptist ever sinned or if he remained sinless unto death.2) God's gift is the restoration of Mary to have an uncorrupted will like Adam/Eve before the Fall. It does not render obedience 'meaningless,' as you wrongly suggested, anymore than God giving Mary special graces in her life would. Similarly, it is frankly odd to claim that having an intact free will somehow inhibits one's free will. Do you think that Adam could have been truly obedient? Did he have freedom?

East and West share a common view that the Theotokos was sinless, but in the East this notion is not held to be a dogma, but is simply a pious belief; while in the West the Virgin Mary is believed to be not only sinless, but incapable of sinning (i.e., she is held to be impeccable), because of her immaculate conception.

See the thread linked below to read the quotations I posted from dozens of Catholic theologians in good standing within the Roman Church for more information on the Latin doctrine of Mary's impeccability:

I am not sure, and please forgive me if im wrong. Isn´t the core difference between orthodox and catholics regarding the blessed virgin this:

Orthodox: Mary herself chose and withs Gods close strength dwelling in here not to sin. The possibilty was always before her to sin, but she chose God in all her decisions, actions and words.

Catholics: Marys will is not even included as her being is fully sinless. Sin didn´t even have a grip upon her, there was no will to chose God nor reject him. Rather her own will was reduced to only go with God. But a restrained will can´t show the love and affection she had towards God.

I would say your Catholic assessment is not quite right. Mary had as much free will as Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created without original sin as well, yet they freely chose to rebel against God. Even though Mary was conceived without original sin, she had just as much free will to rebel against God as Adam and Eve did.

Good points Wyatt. Sometimes, those who argue against the IC seem to speak as if sinfulness is essential to human nature. We know that sinfulness is a corruption, and not the way that God original created humanity.

I am not sure, and please forgive me if im wrong. Isn´t the core difference between orthodox and catholics regarding the blessed virgin this:

Orthodox: Mary herself chose and withs Gods close strength dwelling in here not to sin. The possibilty was always before her to sin, but she chose God in all her decisions, actions and words.

Catholics: Marys will is not even included as her being is fully sinless. Sin didn´t even have a grip upon her, there was no will to chose God nor reject him. Rather her own will was reduced to only go with God. But a restrained will can´t show the love and affection she had towards God.

I would say your Catholic assessment is not quite right. Mary had as much free will as Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created without original sin as well, yet they freely chose to rebel against God. Even though Mary was conceived without original sin, she had just as much free will to rebel against God as Adam and Eve did.

Excellent representation of the situation in my view. Humans were created to be without sin, but we still managed to rebel against God.